Anand @ Anand Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4710 of 2026
Anand @ Anand Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And
Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Pooja Singh, Anshuman Singh,
Shivangi Paliwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant
is taken on record.
Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nirmal
Kumar Pandey and Mr. Susheel Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
Notice to the opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.
Present applicant has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Case No. 5084/2020, "State Vs. Raj @ Pushpendra Jatav
@Guru Ji @ Sushil @ Neetu and other", Under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 474 IPC, at P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda, pending in the
Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda arising out of case crime
no. 385/2020, Under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC, at P.S.
Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda, against the applicant.
Brief factual matrix of the prosecution story is that a complaint was made
by Anamika Shukla on 9.6.2020 alleging that educational certificate of
the complainant has been misused by some persons for getting
appointment in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya though the
complainant never served in such Vidyalaya. It has further been alleged

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
2
that the complainant had informed on 9.6.2022 to the District Basic
Education Officer, Gonda, regarding misuse of the academic certificate of
the complainant, for the alleged appointment, in Kasturba Gandhi
Vidyalaya.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. She submits that the applicant
moved an application under Section 239 of CrPC on 30.5.2023, which was
heard by the learned trial court and in a cursory manner, without application
of judicial mind, the order dated 26.9.2024 has been passed. She contends
that the finding itself transpires that the trial court has not considered the
discharge application in right perspective, as it has been held by the trial
court that the truthfulness and genuineness of the facts will be considered
after the evidence are furnished as the applicant/defence can furnish the
evidence once the trial is committed. She argued that in such a way, the
stage of discharge has been made redundant by the trial court. She also
submits that after rejection of the discharge application on 26.9.2024, no
further proceedings has been undertaken and even the charges have not been
framed as yet, as is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support
of the supplementary affidavit.

In addition, she argued there is no cogent evidence against the applicant
regarding his involvement in commission of offence and it started from the
very initial stage that is the stage of investigation. The things have been done
in very negligent and lethargic manner. Concluding her arguments, she
submits that since the order impugned dated 26.9.2024 has been passed
without application of mind and without any finding given thereof, the same
may be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention
aforesaid, but he has failed to controvert the fact regarding the non-speaking
order passed by the trial court and adverse finding recorded in the order
impugned.

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of records, it transpires that the applicant moved an application
for discharge in the month of May 2023, which is considered and decided by

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
3
the trial court in the month of September 2024.
Relevant portion of the order impugned, is quoted herein under:-
"
उन्मोचन प्रार्थना पत्र में अभियुक्त द्वारा जिन तथ्यों का उल्लेख किया गया है, उनकी सत्यता के सम्बन्ध में
साक्ष्य के उपरान्त ही कोर्ड निष्कर्ष दिया जा सकता है। अभी इस स्तर पर मात्र विवेचक द्वारा संकलित साक्ष्य
का ही मूल्यांकन किया जाना है। विवेचक द्वारा संकलित साक्ष्य से अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध धारा-
419,420,467,468,471,474 भा०दं०सं० का अपराध होना पाया गया है। 'इस स्तर पर अभियुक्त को
उन्मोचित किये जाने का आंधार पर्याप्त नहीं है। अतएव अभियुक्त द्वारा प्रस्तुत उन्मोचन प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार

किये जाने योग्य नहीं है। तदनुरूप निरस्त किये जानें योग्य है।"

From the perusal of the finding recorded by the trial court, it reveals that the
trial court did not consider the ground raised by the applicant in the
discharge application. The trial court on place of considering the material
available before it, proceeded and observed that the facts mentioned in the
discharge application would be considered after the evidences are produced
before it.
The procedure for discharge has been prescribed under Section 239 of the
CrPC, which is extracted herein under:-
"239. When accused shall be discharged.—If, upon considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of
the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and
the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge
against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his
reasons for so doing."
From bare reading of the above noted provision, it transpires that while
considering the discharge of an accused, it is incumbent upon the
Magistrate to consider the police report and the documents sent with it
under Section 173 CrPC. It further provides that if the Magistrate thinks
necessary, he can examine the accused. The consideration of police
report and the documents sent with the police report are not mere
formality but such Magistrate, while considering the discharge of an
accused, will consider those materials and in case, it is found that the
charges against the accused are groundless, such accused shall be
discharged.

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
4
It is long settled law that the trial court while dealing with the application
of discharge, would not act as a rubber stamp or post office rather he will
substantially apply his judicial mind, upon the material, i.e., the police
report and the documents sent along with it. In fact, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused without being influenced with the
fact that the trial would end in conviction or acquittal.
It is discernible that there can be no strait jacket formula for
consideration of discharge rather it depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The stage of discharge is very significant
stage as trial starts after the discharge request is rejected and the stage of
defence would come only when the statement of accused is recorded
under Section 313 CrPC. In between the framing of charges to the stage
of recording the statement of the accused under 313 CrPC, there is no say
of the accused regarding his defence.
The scope of discharge as prescribed under section 227 of the CrPC
(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC, pertaining to warrant cases), as is
held in the case of reported in ,
State Vs. S. Selvi (2018) 13 SCC 455
followed by Vikram Johar Vs. State of UP reported in (2019) 14 SCC
, and subsequently considered by the Apex Court in the case of
207 State
of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh , reported in (1977) 4 SCC 39 , wherein in
paragraph 4, it has been held as under:-
“4. … Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the
conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial
stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in
France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is
proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if
fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
5
the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the
offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial.”
It has been observed by the Apex Court that the strong suspicion may not
take place of proof, at the trial stage, but yet it is sufficient for the
satisfaction of the trial judge in order to frame charge against the accused.
In the case of reported in
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
(1979) 3 SCC 4 , certain principles for consideration on discharge, has
been enunciated, which are extracted as follows:-
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of
each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large
however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which
under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post
Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities
of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not
mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
While formulating the guidelines, it is held that while exercising power

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
6
under section 227 of the CrPC, the trial court cannot act as mouthpiece or
rubber stamp of the prosecution, but the broad probabilities and the
cumulative effect of evidence and documents produced before such court
shall be considered. In fact, the thin difference is that while considering
such documents, the trial court shall know the limits that there will be no
indulgence like a trial, but it is to prima facie look into the materials
available, that whether those constitute the sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial or not.
It is trite that the evidentiary value of the materials placed by the
prosecution cannot be entered into, at the stage of discharge, rather,
prima facie consideration is permitted under the law. This view has been
taken by the Apex Court in the case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta,
reported in
Police Station Bengaluru Vs. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC
515 , wherein in paragraph 25, it has been held as under:-
"25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was
dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC.
The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression
in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption
that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the
material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh
Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] ,
adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22,
para 29)
“29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the
court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not
warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is
a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a
ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court
thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials
on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the
court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
7
law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”"
It emerges from the above noted observations that while dealing with
discharge application, the court must determine whether the facts borne
out from the material discloses existence of necessary contents to
constitute the offence. This law has been reiterated in the recent judgment
rendered in the case of Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 187. Paragraph 21 of the
and another,
said judgment is extracted herein under:-
"21. Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing of
charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an abstract legal
exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal
prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest
engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be
exercised by default or out of caution alone. When the material placed before the
Court, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law
expects the Court to have the clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case
aside.
Discharge, in that sense, is not a technical indulgence but an essential safeguard. The
Court must consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a trial and
one that rests only on suspicion or assumption or for that matter without any basis. To
allow a matter to proceed despite the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a
person to the strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without legal
necessity. Fidelity to the rule of law requires the Court to remember that the process
itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care.
This responsibility weighs heaviest on Trial Courts, which are the first courts most
people ever step into. For a litigant or an accused, the Trial Court is not just one level
in a hierarchy. It represents the face of the judiciary itself. The sensitivity, fairness,
and legal discipline shown at this stage shape how ordinary citizens understand
justice. The impression a Trial Court creates, through its approach to facts and law,
often becomes the impression people carry of the entire judicial system. That is why,
at every stage and especially at the threshold, Trial Courts must remain alive to the
human consequences of their decisions and to the trust that society places in them."
The view earlier taken by the Apex Court has been reiterated in the

A482 No. 4710 of 2026
8
present matter and it has been held that discharge cannot be considered in
a technical way, but the consideration has to go to the limit of the
distinction between suspicion and assumption, groundlessness and
material, which warrants the trial. It is apt to say here that the
consideration of discharge application cannot be undertaken as a
formality, but the material, which is available before the trial court, has
actually been considered to reach the fine line distinction between the
sufficient ground, which indicates prima facie insufficiency of leading the
trial.
Now, coming to the present case, it emerges from the order impugned that
there is non-application of mind by the Magistrate as he has not examined
the material available before him with scrupulous measure to find out that
whether the same discloses the presence of necessary ingredient to
constitute the offence. The finding recorded reveals that the trial court had
given his findings into two paragraphs. The first paragraph is narration of
the facts regarding the charge-sheets sent to the trial court and the order of
cognizance including the summons, while in the second paragraph it has
been observed that after examining the evidentiary value of the material,
the court can reach to the conclusion which, in fact, is impermissible
under the law as the Apex court, time and again, has reiterated that the
material available before the trial court shall be looked into prima facie
and the evidentiary value of such evidence cannot be examined as the
same would warrant proceeding of the trial.
In view of the abovenoted submissions and discussions, this Court finds that
the order impugned herein, is unsustainable, consequently, the same is
hereby set aside.
Eargo the matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned to pass fresh
order on the application of discharge, within a period of eight weeks.
Present application stands
allowed accordingly, at the admission stage.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
July 8, 2026
Ram Murti
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench